rightly vnderstood with the Catholique faith which we now professe For heere is nothing but what I shewed before out of Bellarmine Lib. 5. de iustif cap. 7. prop. 3. to wit that in reguard of the vncertainty of our owne iustice that is whether we be iust or noe and for the peril of vaine glory it is most safe to putt our whole confidence in the Sole mercy and benignity of GOD. Which word Sole doth import confidence in that and in nothing els With which it may stand very well that men in the fauour and grace of God may doe works meritorious of increase of grace and glory which is the controuersy betweene Vs and Haeretiques For men may bee in grace and not know it they may doe those good works and yet not know that their works haue that supernatural goodnes purity of intention and other perfection which is necessary to make it meritorious all which makes vs vncertaine whether we merit or not though we be neuer soe certaine that if our Workes be such as they should bee they are meritorious And to this purpose is the discourse of the Councel of Trent in the end of the 16. Chapter of the 6. Session where hauing explicated the meritt of good works and reward dew vnto them it hath these memorable words to stopp the mouths of all insulting Haeretiques Absit tamen vt homo Christianus in seipso vel confidat vel glorietur non in Domino God forbid that any Christian man should trust or glory in himselfe and not in our Lord. What more then is there Sir Humphrey in that booke which you alleadge then heere is in Bellarmine and the Councel of Trent or which may not be easily explicated to this sense And all this answeare is supposing you cite your author true for I haue not seene him nor doth it soe much import to see him But if it bee not against vs why will you say doth the Inquisition correct it I answeare not for the doctrine but for the doubtfulnes ambiguity of the words which being not rightly vnderstood might endaunger the lesse wary Reader 's fall into your Lutheran errour of deniall of all meritt of good works which was neuer intended by the author though it may bee he might speake securely in those dayes where there was no thought of any such haeresy But how soeuer the booke is not of any knowne good author and it hath been printed and reprinted now in this tyme of haeresy by Haeretiques and therefore may well fall vnder the Inquisition's correction as giuing iust cause of suspition that they thrust words in for their owne purposes What poore authority is this then for you to build vpon Wherefore to begin well you haue wholy failled in the proofe of your first point of iustification producing but one onely place and that of noe speciall good authority as you alleadge it out of Cassander and euen nothing against vs If then you begin soe well with iustification how are you like to iustify your self in the rest of your points which follow to which I now passe The Knight's 2. §. Of the Sacrament of the Lord's super as he speaketh and the Doctrine of transubstantiation examined §. 2. 1. HE beginneth this § with a praeamble concerning his Churches Baptisme which he saith noe mā will deny to be the same substātially with that of the Primitiue Church and that our salt spittle and other caeremonies doe not transsubstantiate the element nor want of them enforce rebaptization Which serueth for nothing els but to shew the man's folly and vanity for what Catholique did he euer heare speake against the Validity of the Sacrament of Baptisme administred in dew matter and forme and with intention of doeing what the Church doth though the Minister were neuer soe much Haeretique Iew Turque or Infidell or affirme that the caeremonies therein vsed did cause any transubstantiation of the water or that for the want of them the party were to be rebaptized noe we say none of these things but onely that they that administer this Sacrament without these caeremonies euer vsed in the Church from the Apostles tyme vnlesse in case of necessity doe cōmitt a great sinne as Protestants doe and the more because they omitt them out of an haeretical contempt Which notwithstanding the Baptisme is auaileable 2. But letting this passe the knight cometh to the Sacrament of the Eucharist wherein he triumpheth mightily about a certaine Homily of one Aelfricke an Abbot heere in England about the yeare 996. Which he saith was approued by diuers Bishops at their Synods and appointed to bee read publiquely to the people on Easter-day and two other writings or Epistles of the same authors one to the Bishop of Sherborne the other to the Bishop of Yorke The words of the Homily are these as he citeth them out of D. Vsher. There is a great difference betwixt the body wherein Christ suffered and the body which is receiued of the faithfull The body truely that Christ suffered in it was borne of the flesh of Mary with bloud and with bone with skin and with sinewes in humane limbs with a reasonable Soule liuing and his Spiritual body which nourisheth the faithful Spiritually is gathered of many cornes without bloud and bone without limbs without soule and therefore there is nothing to be vnderstood bodily but Spiritually c. Thus farre the authority or words of this author wherwith Sir Humphrey maketh much adoe spending 2. or 3. leaues in it 3. To which I answeare first for his Synods that it is strange hee nameth not any Synod nor any author or place where any such is extant For the Councels I haue examined them and yet doe not find any Synod held in England about that tyme or any thing of that nature handled Lett him name the Synode and bring the words I doubt not but we shall find a sufficient answeare therefore to let his Synods alone for the present we come to Aelfrike whom I haue not also seene nor can find soe much as named in those books which haue most of our Catholique authors both moderne and ancient saue onely by Harpsfield in his history where I find also noe more but that the Berengarian haeresy beganne some what to bee taught and maintained out of certaine writings falsely attributed to Aelfricke this is all and therefore cannot say soe much in confutation of this place as it is like might be said if a man did see the author himselfe and not set out or translated onely by Haeretiques but yet I trust I shall say enough euen out of Dr. Vsher who citeth the Latine in the margent to shew Sir Humphrey's bad dealing and to satisfy any indifferent Reader 4. First you Sir Humphrey to turne my speech to you I say that Aelfrick was a Catholique author and deliuereth nothing but Catholique doctrine in this Homily or place by you cited which a man may proue euen out of your selfe For
you confesse that transubstantiation is suggested in that Homily by two miracles which you say are feigned contrary to the author's meaning but your cōmon fashion is to call all Miracles feigned because you can worke none your selues besids if they goe alōg in the narration as the rest of the text as if they did not I suppose you would note being a good proofe against them what colour is there that we should suggest them and not the author write them himselfe or why should you take the other words heere rehearsed to be the author's and deny the miracles which goe along with them in the same narration You will say they are against his meaning and scope that were somewhat indeede Sir Humphrey but it is but your misvnderstanding of the author for euen in those words which Mr. Vsher citeth in Latine and which he culleth out as making most for his owne purpose I finde the author to speake very well and plainely of transubstantiation as I shall now shew Vshers disp pag. 78. cap. 3. the words are these Multâ differentiâ separantur corpus in quo passus est Christus hoc corpus quod in mysterio passionis Christi quotidie a fidelibus celebratur illa namque caro quae crucifixa est de Virginis carne facta est ossibus neruis compacta humanorum membrorum lineamentis distincta rationalis animae spiritu viuificata in propriam vitam congruentes motus At vero caro spiritualis quae populum credentem spiritualiter pascit secundum speciem quam gerit exterius frumenti granis manu artificis confistet nullis neruis ossibusque compacta nulla membrorum varietate distincta nulla rationali substantia vegetata nullos proprios potens motus exercere Quicquid enim in ea vitae praebet substantiam spiritualis est potentiae inuisibilis efficientiae diuinaeque virtutis 5. These are the Latine words cited in the margent by D. Vsher which he translated farre otherwise in his English text whom you also follow taking his English words either because you vnderstood not the Latine or perhaps because you would be loath but to follow any error or corruption that cometh in your way I will therefore truely translate them and then obserue your Doctor 's corruption and yours the true translation is this The body in which Christ suffered and this body which is celebrated euery day by the faithfull in mistery that is as a mystery or mystical representation and commemoration of the passion are separated by much difference that is are very different or doe much differ for that flesh which was crucified was made of the flesh of the Virgin compacted with bones and nerues or sinewes and distinguished by lineaments of humane limbs liu'd or made liuing by the spirit of a reasonable Soule vnto proper life and congruent or agreeable motions but the Spiritual flesh which Spiritually feedeth the beleeuing people according to the shew which it carrieth outwardly consisteth of graines of corne by the hand of the artificer not compact or knit together with any finewes and bones not distinguished by any variety of members not vegetated or liu'd by any reasonable substance not able to exercise any proper motions For whatsoeuer in it giueth the Substance of life is of Spiritual power inuisible working and diuine vertue Now lett any man compare Dr. Vsher's and Sir Humphrey Lind's English and see whether agree better with the Latine theirs or this though they differ somewhat betweene themselues but I will chiefly follow my owne chase of the Knight's translation He shall find first in these words Hoc corpus quod in mysterio passionis Christi quotidie a fidelibus celebratur This body which is daily celebrated by the faithfull in mystery of the passion the word hoc left out And all the other words saue onely the word Corpus the rest because there is mētion made of daily celebration as a mystery of the Passiō of Christ as is practized in the Catholique Church they change in the trāslation The Knight thus the body which is receiued of the faithfull the Dr. a little otherwise but I let him alone wherein any man may see the knight's bad meaning 6. Secondly the knight saith the body that Christ suffered in was borne of the flesh of Mary c. Whereas the true English is this The flesh which was crucified was made of the flesh of the Virgin Wherein though to the Vulgar Reader there may appeare but small difference betweene borne and made yet there is a great deale for Aelfrick's opposition doth not consist in this that the flesh crucified was borne of the Virgin and the other not as the knight would make a man beleeue but it consisteth in the matter whereof the body on the crosse and the body in the Sacrament are made For as it is in the Sacrament it is made of bread tanquam materia transeunte as Diuines speake and not of the Flesh of the Virgin but that flesh is the terminus ad quem of the transubstantiating action or that whereinto the substance ob bread is changed though it be the same body that was borne of her And this sheweth the knight's cunning corruption how great it may bee in matter and substance though the word be neuer soe like or little 7. Thirdly whereas the knight saith with bloud and with bone with skin and with Sinewes in humane limbs with a reasonable soule The Latine hath not the word bloud nor the word skin And the Knight on the other side leaueth the word compacta Compacted with bones and sinews And those words in humane limbs are farre otherwise in the Latine as any man may see to wit thus distinguished by humane limbs All which putting in and putting out chopping and changing though it may seeme not to make much either way yet it is very like it is vsed by this Knight to obscure the author's meaning and drift which is by all these particulars to shew the difference betweene Christ vpon the crosse and Christ in the B. Sacrament that is the difference in his manner of being not in his being it selfe nor denying him to be really in both which is that the knight would obscure and make seeme as if this author meant it were not the same Christ that were in both Which is very false which his bad meaning is farther discouered in that which followeth For hauing putt downe these words with a reasonable soule liuing which yet doe not altogether soe well answeare to the Latine words rationalis animae spiritu viuificata he leaueth out these other immediately following in propriam vitam congruentes motus By which it is signified that Christ's flesh crucified vpon the crosse had a reasonable soule whereby not onely to liue but to be able to shew this life by action and motion agreable therevnto which words explane the former and are very pertinent to declare the meaning of what is said on the
they are Sacraments because ordayned by Christ primarily the other 5. not And for proofe you bring the Cardinal as if he said the same But in this place the Cardinal speaketh not one word eyther of their being or not being Sacraments or being or not being instituted by Christ as these very words themselues doe shew and any man may see more plainely in Bellarmine himselfe both heere and elsewhere where he handleth those matters teaching the contrary expresly and of purpose What madnes then is it for a man to say the Cardinal is enforced vpon a thing that he dreameth not of to cōfesse cleane another matter Now Bellarmines meaning in that place is onely of the signification of the Sacraments that is what thing they signify because they are sacred signes of something And he saith they signify three things one thing past to wit the passion of Christ another present to wit sanctifying grace which they worke in our soules another thing to come to wit aeternal life which is the effect of grace which three things he saith euery Sacrament doth signify And he saith it is certaine that they doe soe signify But withall that the signification of these three is not soe expresse and alike apparent or knowne in all But most apparent in Baptisme and the Eucharist not soe apparent in the rest Which last words being in Latine thus De alijs Sacramentis non estita notū Of the other Sacraments it is not soe knowne to wit that they signify all these thing you translate or rather corrupt them thus Of the other 5. it is not soe certaine Notum with you is certaine And whereas the oppositiō in Bellarmines saying is betweene knowne and not knowne Bell. de sacr in gen lib. 1. cap. 9. you make it betwene knowne or apparēt and certaine which are not opposite For a thing may be certaine though not manifest as all matters of faith are And then you leaue out that which Bellarmine saith of the certainty thus Tamen certum est saltem implicite illa omnia significare quia cum omnia significent gratiam consequenter etiam significāt principium finem eiusdem gratiae But it is certaine that they signify all these things at least implicitely Because seing they signify grace they consequently also signify the beginning and end of the same grace That is the passion of Christ which is the cause and aeternal life which is the effect of grace Whereby it is euident how shamefully you abuse this good Cardinal and soe I end this § Communion in both kinds §. 5. 1. In this § Sir Humphrey beginneth with the 6. article as he calleth it of the Romane Creede I confesse that vnder one kind onely all and whole Christ and the true Sacrament is receiued And the Decree of the Councel of Constāce which saith that notwithstanding Christ did institute in both kinds yet the Laity are to communicate in one kind Which word notwithstanding the Knight is pleased to glosse thus As it were in despite of God and Man with which he ioyneth the Councel of Trent saying thus Although our Sauiour did exhibite in both kinds yet if any mā shall say the holy Catholique Church was not induced for iust causes to communicate the lay people and the non-Conficient Priest vnder one kind to wit of bread onely and shall say they erred in soe doing lett him bee accursed Against this he bringeth two places of scripture the practize of the primitiue Church and soe concludeth the antiquity and vniuersality of his Church This goeth round with a fiddle Sir Humphrey But now you must take vs along with you and giue vs leaue to comin with you a little vpon the matter 2. This you say is the 6. article of our Creede by which a mā may see I said true in the beginning when I told you if it had beene your good pleasure soe to doe you might haue deuided this Creede into 24. articles as well as into 12. for this is but a little libbet in the very later end of that article as you haue put it downe in the beginning of your booke Which peece also you translate out of the Latine falsely and absurdly the Latine being thus Fateor etiam sub altera specie totum atque integrum Christum verumque Sacramentū sumi I confesse also vnder one kind onely to be receiued Christ whole and entire and a true Sacrament Whereas you say all and whole Christ as if the Councel had said omnis totus Christus where the word all is improper for who speaketh thus all Peter all Paul and it importes as if Christ had many things pertaining to him which were himselfe but yet did not make one and the same thing with him which is not imaginable how it can be whereas totus Christus doth signify One whole Christ And Omnis Christus and totus Christus to any man that vnderstandeth Latine are two wery different things And in your translation you confound totus and integer making them both to signify the same whereas in the Councel they haue a seueral signification totus pertaineth to the integrity of Christ as consisting of essential parts of body and soule and of his personality and Diuinity and integer pertaineth to the integrity of all the parts of his body as head hands feete c. which the Philosophers call partes integrantes By this then you see how a man that were disposed to stand about you might trouble you when in such a small thing as this there may bee found soe many faults 3. For the Councel of Constance which you are soe displeased withall for contradicting the word of Christ as you conceiue me thinkes there might be found a meanes to appease your displeasure if you would but remember that at the same tyme and in the same decree it was also declared that notwithstanding that Christ did institute the Bl. Sacrament after supper yet men should now receiue it fasting which decree I presume you will not condemne Neither will you I dare say glosse the words notwithstanding soe fauourably in your owne behalfe as you did in ours as in despite of God and Man you would receiue your communion fasting though Christ did receiue it not fasting but euen after supper and bid vs doe what hee did in remembrance of him and notwithstanding also that it is not to be doubted as you tell vs out of Bellarmine but that is best fittest to be practised which Christ himselfe hath done Doe you not then see Sir Humphrey how you may be made freinds with the Councel of Constance seing it hath done you as good a turne as it hath done to vs. But because I see not how you could but know this before and therefore haue erred as I may well say wittingly this is too freindly language to talke to you therefore I answeare you plainely in bringing this Decree this you haue brought a staffe to beate your selfe withal For the
saith thus It is not incredible that some such thing should be after this life but whether it be soe or noe it may be a question You say also for the place where it is or how long soules continue there whither there be fire or water or whither material fire or noe there is nothing certaine among vs You cite Sir Thomas More Bishop Fisher and Bellarmine whose words I passe ouer as needlesse and then you tell vs that S. Greg. who gaue the first credo to Purgatory saith some are purged by fire some by hott bathes and vpon certaine apparitions and reuelations related by him and S. Bede you say it is come to be an article of faith but you conclude with a place of S. Aug. quite against Purgatory Lib. de vaâ—it Saecul â—ap 1. where he saith that when the Soule is separated from the body presently it is either placed in paradice for its good works or cast into hell for its sinnes I answeare that you still goe abusing S. Aug. who is soe plaine for Purgatory that noe Catholique now liuing can be more plaine and in this very booke of his Enchiridiâ—n and place by you cited he is soe plaine that one Mr. Anthony Alcocke a zealous disciple as it seemeth translating it into English is faine to write certaine animaduersions vpon the 110. chapter wherein he confesseth S. Aug. his opinion heere for Purgatory but he laboureth to obscure his meaning or reconcile him by fetching other places as wisely and well to the purpose as you are wont to doe but to be brief with you that which S. Aug. saith may be a question is not of purgatory or the being of Purgatory as you say most Linde like but of the manner of paine as whether euen as men are heere troubled in this world more or lesse with the losse of worldly things as they more or lesse loued them which trouble or tribulation S. Aug. explicateth to be that fire whereof S. Paul speakes saying that those that build hay straw stubble c. shal be Saued as it were by fire whether I say men be soe punished in Purgatory this S. Aug. doth not determine but whether there be a Purgatory or noe Enchir. cap. 110. let any man iudge since he saith there Neque negandum est defunctorum animas c. Neither is it to bee denied that the Soules of the dead are relieued by the piety of their freinds liuing when the Sacrifice of our Mediator is offered for them or almes giuen in the Church Note heere 3. or 4. controuersies decided in this one sentence of S. Aug. Satisfactions Masse Purgatory Prayers for the dead and there he also distinguisheth 3. sorts of dead people some in heauen that neede noe such helpe others in hell that cannot be helped by them a third of those that are not soe well as not to neede them nor soe ill but that they may be the better for these helpes This S. Aug. speaketh certainely and more we doe not say certainely of Purgatory the particulars of place manner of punishment durance c. are things disputable among Diuines which you haue nothing to doe with and if for such vncertainties you will reiect the beleife of Purgatory by the same reason you may deny that there is an hell as it is like you doe in your hart for els you could not say and write as you doe Now for S. Greg. who you say gaue the first Credo to Purgatory that is answeare enough which I alleadged last out of S. Aug. by which it appeareth he gaue it an vndoubted Credo long before for he died neere 200. yeares before S. Greg. but for founding the beleife thereof vpon apparitions of dead men reuelatioÌ„s of this Saint S. Bedes relation it is most false by the same argument still For how could the faith of S. Aug. his tyme be grounded vpon the reuelations of men lyuing two or three hundred yeares after or indeede vpon any reuelation of any man faith is grounded vpon the reuelation of God alone deliuered vnto vs by his Church Therefore to the last place of S. Aug. I say it is vnderstood that presently as soone as the soule departeth it receiueth the doome either of Paradice or hell that is whether it is to goe finally and that is both true and his meaning as appeareth by what he saith of the same matter els where thus Tempus quod inter hominis mortem c. The tyme betweene the death of a man and the general resurrection containeth the soules in hidden receptacles as each is worthy either of ease or paine according as it deserued whiles it liued For it is not to be denied that the soules of the dead are helped by the piety of their liuing freinds This place is soe plaine as not only not to admitt any tergiuersation but alsoe to explaine any other that may seeme obscure 12. A third point of vncertaine doctrine as you obiect is Indulgences for which you alleadge Durand and Gerson For Durand looke in the § of Indulgences in Bellarmine Lib. 1. de Indulg cap. 2. and there you shall find him not to doubt of Indulgences but of that which wee call thesaurus ecclesiae for as much as it consisteth of the satisfactions of the Saints And as for Gerson who saith that whether the power of the keyes extend onely to such as are on earth or also to those in Purgatory the opinions of men are contrary and vncertaine it is most friuolous to obiect him For what doth this pertaine to faith or doth it pertaine onely to Indulgences is not the question common to other acts of iurisdiction vnderstood by the power of the keyes this is your argument Diuines dispute whether the Popes power extend to the soules in Purgatory ergo the doctrine of Indulgences is vncertaine This might be answeare enough but to display you a little more I will say a word or two more of Gerson and first euen in this point of extending the Popes power ouer those that are in Purgatory euen to the remission of paine absolution from venial sinne or excommunication before incurred he is soe fauourable in this place by you cited as to graunt the opinions on both sides probable which is more theÌ„ other Diuines graunt and is more then needeth for applying Indulgences to the dead Soe as in graunting that probable he maketh this certaine and this for Indulgences in as much as they pertaine to the dead Now for the liuing or power of Indulgences in general thus he saith â—rs 2. p. de â—â—ulg con â— 11. 12 Indulgentiarum concessio non est parui pendenda seu contemnenda sed amplectenda in fide spe charitate Domini nostri IESV CHRISTI qui potestatem talium claurum ecclesiasticam dedit hominibus The graunting of Indulgences is not to be little esteemed or contemned but to be embraced in the faith hope and Charity of our Lord IESVS